"Total disaster": Doping expert discusses the Freigang case
🇩🇪 Originalartikel in deutscher Sprache: https://web.de/magazine/sport/fussball/totalkatastrophe-dopingexperte-spricht-freigang-42626862
Updated on August 19, 2026, 5:22 PM
The DFB Control Committee has been investigating Laura Freigang since early June. In this interview, doping expert Prof. Dr. Fritz Sörgel explains what the national team player might face, what this would mean for her daily life, and what lessons athletes should draw from the situation.
An interview
by Andreas Reiners
Three tests within twelve months where doping control officers failed to find Laura Freigang at her registered location: the DFB Control Committee has been reviewing the case since early June, yet no outcome has been reached. The 28-year-old Eintracht Frankfurt captain continues to play—scoring goals in Champions League qualifiers—while she waits.
Sörgel is intimately familiar with comparable cases from recent years. Speaking to our editorial team, he explains what the Control Committee is looking for during this period, why a ban would have severe consequences for a female footballer, and just how strict the reporting requirements actually are. The case of Owen Ansah is also discussed.
Mr. Sörgel, how serious is a missed doping test?
Prof. Dr. Fritz Sörgel: A single missed test isn't a catastrophe in itself. Nor is a second one. But the third one immediately leads to total disaster. It must be clearly stated, however, that there is a dramatic difference between a missed test and a refusal to be tested. A refusal immediately carries the threat of a four-year ban—as NADA is seeking in the case of Owen Ansah. With three missed tests, a solid line of defense usually results in a two-year ban. A one-year penalty is almost never handed down; sometimes athletes end up with a term somewhere between one and two years. But for a ban of less than two years, there really have to be exceptional circumstances working in the athlete's favor.
When exactly is a test considered missed?
When the athlete isn't present during their designated one-hour window. They declare: "I will be at this specific address in Hamburg from 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m." If they aren't there when the time comes, it counts as a missed test. Period.
As a national team player, Laura Freigang is part of the Registered Testing Pool, which is subject to the strictest reporting requirements. How tight is this system?
Very tight. The pool applies to all athletes of international significance. Football is a kind of religion in this country anyway—the most important sport—so national team players are naturally included. The same applies to the first and second divisions (Bundesliga), for both women and men. The logic behind this is simple: the higher the level of performance, the greater the suspicion that things might not be entirely above board. There is no room for debate; the testing is carried out rigorously.
Do you consider the system fair?
Three missed tests is the limit. If you ask how many chances people should be given after breaking rules in some way, you often arrive at that number across many areas of life. But certainly no more than that. Four missed tests in twelve months would mean one every three months, on average. You could also argue: after the first test, she should have been careful. Even more so after the second. And then it happens a third time—in the case of a professional athlete whose job and income depend on being allowed to play. That raises the question: how does this happen?
Freigang speaks of discrepancies and misunderstandings regarding her missed tests. According to a report by *Bild*, the issue centers primarily on the third missed test. She was reportedly at her parents' home on February 23 but had listed her own apartment as her location. She wasn't found there, but she subsequently drove to the location and provided a negative sample. Furthermore, she had a match against SC Freiburg that day. This raises the question of whether a private test should have taken place at all. It all sounds very complicated.
There is a lot of speculation right now because there is little official information. It is obvious that the situation is not easy for outsiders to grasp. We are talking about a highly professional footballer here. Of course, things like this can happen. But then you have to face the consequences. Admittedly, it is tough when you have a job with a busy schedule and have to specify a one-hour window each day when you will be at a particular location. But she can change that on short notice. Ultimately, an incorrect entry would count as a so-called "filing failure," and that would be penalized just like a missed test. WADA emphasizes this very clearly.
When can she hope for an acquittal?
For starters, the penalty being cited is two years. In the event of a total failure of communication with the reporting system—or errors within it—a one-year ban could be considered. Such a penalty has practically never been imposed for missed tests or filing failures in the past. If it could be proven that the fault lay entirely outside her control, the missed test would be disregarded, meaning she would not be banned. However, such an exoneration would be so unusual that NADA or WADA would immediately file an appeal. The case would then end up before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The DFB Control Committee has been investigating since early June. The DFB points to the extensive factual background and complex medical and legal issues involved, emphasizing that thoroughness takes precedence over speed. Do you see it that way too?
It has been two months now. After this amount of time, NADA would have the right to step in and say: "Enough is enough; we haven't found any discrepancy that calls the test into question, so the case is going to the Court of Arbitration for Sport." That would be an interesting question to put to NADA—why they aren't actually doing that. And one could ask the DFB why it is taking so long. There is a fear that the Control Committee might drag this out until the beginning of next year. Frankly, I don't understand why. After all, the case isn't *that* complicated.
What exactly is the Control Committee looking for?
They are examining what actually happened regarding the third missed test. They are looking at instances where penalties were reduced in comparable cases. And they may well be scrutinizing the system itself for errors. Whether that actually counts for anything is a completely different question. In any case, it remains astonishing that a national team player, just a year before the World Cup, would take the risk of incurring a third "strike" due to negligence. Don't you make a calendar entry for something like that? With two strikes, you are teetering on the edge of disaster.
Are there any precedents that can serve as a guide?
The most interesting case is that of Salwa Eid Naser, the 2019 world champion in the 400 meters. She actually missed four tests—meaning she was not present at the location she had specified. The situation was then resolved through a clever maneuver involving shifting the observation period; after all, the three missed tests must occur within a twelve-month span. One test was declared invalid, and she initially escaped punishment—until WADA intervened, took the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and she was handed a two-year ban.
What does this mean for the DFB?
The rule is: If the DFB hands down a ban of less than two years, the case will almost certainly end up before the CAS. And then all the documents the DFB has submitted will be on the table there. If those documents reveal a desperate attempt to argue away a test result, one’s chances at the CAS are poor. So, the DFB should be very careful and not overestimate its position.
Regardless of the outcome: As an expert, do you shake your head in disbelief when something like this happens?
Yes, it makes you shake your head. But I don't know Ms. Freigang well enough to speculate whether it was negligence or intentional. No one can really judge that at the moment. Two factors come into play here: the ban itself and the fact that she is getting older during this time and will likely need a long period to reintegrate. Especially if it turns out to be a two-year ban, that would be extremely serious for a female footballer in her prime.
What would a ban mean for Freigang in practical terms?
Under such a sanction, she wouldn't even be allowed to enter the club grounds or train with the team. She couldn't play for a local league club in Frankfurt, either—not even on a standard football pitch. It is a harsh punishment; there is no other way to put it. What does that mean? Just look at injured players and how long it takes them to get back to form, even after the injury has healed. She won't have completely forgotten how to play football after two years, but following a two-year ban, it will take time before she is ready to compete at the top level again.
How does a person cope with a situation like this?
Freigang has been performing well recently. Clearly, she is able to focus despite this looming punishment—much like the track athlete Ansah. But elite athletes are a special breed. They can often block that out while on the field—it’s something they’ve learned; sports psychology plays a major role in all disciplines these days. What happens in the evening before they fall asleep is another matter. They would be unusual people if they didn't think about it at all. A strong suspicion of doping lies behind three missed tests, just as it does behind a refused test. Without that near-certain assumption, such bans couldn't be imposed in the first place.
There is no suspicion of doping against Freigang; all parties emphasize that. Does the suspicion arise automatically anyway?
The test she submitted later reportedly came back negative. Nevertheless, athletes are generally viewed with suspicion; while WADA has made mistakes over the years, it is experienced in evaluating excuses. It turns out that, in retrospect, the sanctions in many controversial cases were not entirely unjustified.
How do you think it will turn out?
Let’s assume WADA takes the case to the CAS. Then it really comes down to how Freigang and the DFB present their case before the CAS. Given NADA’s statement that everything was in order regarding the three tests, the CAS will ask why the case is even there. It will result in a two-year ban if the DFB overplays its hand, or a few months less if there are genuinely strong, valid arguments. But there is no way Ms. Freigang will get away with just a one-year ban. There are numerous examples of two-year bans and practically no exceptional cases resulting in a one-year ban. Internationally, a reduction is generally only accepted if it comes from the CAS—which is viewed as a neutral institution. If a German body makes that decision unilaterally, it faces challenges. And then it’s possible that a two-year ban stands in the end.
What about the Owen Ansah case?
In Owen Ansah’s case, it involves an allegedly refused test. He won gold and bronze at the European Championships.
How do you think that case will end?
His case is basically clear-cut. Refusing a test generally carries a standard four-year ban.
He was under time pressure because he had to catch his flight. Isn't that still negligent?
He might genuinely not have realized the situation at that moment. And I believe that is precisely what will be the decisive point in the hearing: Did the doping control officer explicitly warn him that he faced this penalty if he left then? Ansah has emphasized that the officer wished him good luck. If that is true, it speaks volumes about the atmosphere during that conversation. I’ve never witnessed such a procedure myself; perhaps things are always kept casual—after all, you don’t want to make the athlete nervous. But for Ansah, "good luck" could have been interpreted to mean: "What you’re doing is fine." He was allowed to compete at that time; he hadn't been sanctioned. He still hasn't been. So, wishing someone good luck is acceptable in that context.
Is an acquittal conceivable?
I am very curious about this hearing, as it will reveal what information was exchanged—both verbally and in writing—between Ansah and the doping control officer, and what arguments he presents in his defense. There is speculation circulating as to whether any crucial documents were signed. It is unlikely that the sanction will be less than two years. That would be a bitter outcome—a harsh penalty to face at the peak of his athletic career.
Is there anything else of note regarding the Ansah and Freigang cases?
There is one important piece of information missing from the *Bild* report: how much time elapsed between the missed test and the subsequent test? This could be significant for the Ansah case as well. If Freigang was tested after a considerable delay, then Mr. Ansah is entitled to ask why there was no time to test him at the airport.
